Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Fedex import charge


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3241 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

thanks, i actually feel a bit better now, i suppose knowing i have to act in one way or the other is better than the uncertainty. its nice to know that i can have some time. is it worth approaching them and saying i won't have the money until so-and-so a date and would it be okay to work something out?

 

I don't see why not [approach it] but as with most large corporates it'll probably still go through the usual back office credit control functions anyway so you may end up coming away from it wondering why you bothered.

 

If you think its going to take you a while to settle then perhaps a few short lines to it advising that it was the first time you'd purchased from overseas and were unaware your consignment would attract VAT and Duty, its invoice leaving you financially embarrassed in the short term and you wish to make it an offer in the interim [whatever's affordable, even its its just a fiver a month]. You never know, it may consider it commercially unattractive to administer the account at that payment rate and credit the balance to get you off its books :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can save the £12 by provding Fedex with the information they need to process the package beforehand so do you know the following.

Sender's EORTHI

flight and destination code as required by HMRC

11 digit tariff code (you can look this up in the book, which will cost you £600 plus updates)

Your pseudoTURN or VAT number

all of this has to be supplied on the HMRC approved form.

If the item comes via RM they charge £20 so £12 isnt so bad and so much easier than doing it yourself unless you want to go into the import business

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why not [approach it] but as with most large corporates it'll probably still go through the usual back office credit control functions anyway so you may end up coming away from it wondering why you bothered.

 

If you think its going to take you a while to settle then perhaps a few short lines to it advising that it was the first time you'd purchased from overseas and were unaware your consignment would attract VAT and Duty, its invoice leaving you financially embarrassed in the short term and you wish to make it an offer in the interim whatever's affordable, even its its just a fiver a month]. You never know, it may consider it commercially unattractive to administer the account at that payment rate and credit the balance to get you off its books :!:

 

this is the letter i sent to them the other day (these are both pdfs)

 

[ATTACH]57716[/ATTACH]

 

and i received this reply today

 

[ATTACH]57717[/ATTACH]

 

3 payments over 3 months and the first by the end of this month otherwise they suggest its a default...although obviously better than one payment, it left me feeling a bit crestfallen as i thought i'd taken the first step in coming off the back-foot and i still can't really afford this..where does this leave me?

as i mentioned i understand that i will pay them, but, and i could be wrong, i get the impression that they are playing their chances a bit, trying the forceful approach.. taking into account what you said about having some time to pay..is this the best i can hope for do you know any advice on how i might be able to negotiate further please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something screwy going on with the server, I can view its response but not your correspondence.

 

If £5.00 is all you can afford then pay at that rate, not sure why it refers to credit terms under a separate agreement as that would usually be for commercial clients and would attract interest on late payment. 3 months to clear £75.00 isn't exactly being too pushy but if you genuinely don't have the funds then send it a cheque for £5.00 advising that whilst you now appreciate it is equally and severally liable for payment to HMR& C you simply do not have the necessary funds and will require a longer period to settle the account. Anything received following that I'd be inclined to file under ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh thanks feel better about it now, i've been feeling stressed all day by it..

.thats good to hear so i can just keep paying them £5 despite their intention to try to enforce some sort of stricter agreement - because i'm setting out my intention to pay, i haven't ignored it and have acknowledged it but i can ignore any pressure they try to apply subsequently, once i've started paying?

i don't have a chequebook (just a basic account), is there another way to go with that? EDIT: i see at the bottom of their letter are account details for payment...what about if i do a direct bank transfer each month?

.

...with regard to the correspondence i sent easier just to quote it :) i trust you don't mind, i used a few of your key ideas in there regarding wording :

 

"Federal Express (Europe)Inc.

Sutherland House

Coventry

14th May 2015

Dear Sirs,

Acct Invoice Ref.

(Please see enclosed copy of invoice)

I have recently received an invoice from yourselves in respect of import duties to be paid on a consignment i received on the 28th of April 2015.

Being inexperienced in receiving goods from overseas, i didn’t realise the consignment would attract VAT and Duty. This invoice has left me financially embarrassed in the short term, coupled to which i am in receipt of ESA benefits, and so wish to make you an offer of payment of £5 Per month in the interim...is this possible please?

Yours Sincerely,"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you have to ask yourself what it can do if it takes you a little longer to settle the account. It can stamp its feet, it can pass the account to a 3rd party DCA which could also stamp its feet but at the end of the day unless its prepared to sue you for peanuts when you have already made an offer to pay over time it just becomes an exercise in irrelevance for it to keep pressing you.

 

Your letter was more than clear, concise, polite and to the point.

 

Yes, if you have its banking details set up a standing order and follow up with a short note to it confirming same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unless you feel the need, perhaps just keep it simple and reply stating that you have set up standing order with reference xxxx to its favour and trust it understands that this amount is all that is currently affordable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

the standing order is set up, the first payment has come out..i got this letter last week from them in response to my letting them know i'd set up the standing order..

 

Further to your letter dated 27th May 2015, we are unable to accept your payment proposal therefore we will continue to chase for the full balance of this invoice. Failure to make the full payment will result in late payment fees.

 

we look forward to the full payment, its cost you £1.64 [i'd sent it recorded delivery so i know they got it okay] to send this letter which you could have put towards your payment.

 

kind regards,

 

Jass Jassal [same bloke who responded to my first letter]

i've laid out a payment plan, they accepted the first payment, it hasn't been returned, i've been polite..i could be wrong but i got the impression that this was a kind of we have to send this letter kind of letter..what do you think? what kind of late payment fees could they enforce?..shall i just leave it now; not respond? Edited by Preyin Graham
to add quotes
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...